Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.

Options
1…131132134136137…323

Comments

  • Options
    #3992
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,375 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    One personal attack in this thread by a poster named: Mongfinder General.

    Wonderful name. Kudos.


  • Options
    #3993
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    Tell me how wrote: »
    What she has said is that the solutions which are needed have not yet been invented and that people need to unite and empower scientists in order to help come up with solutions.

    What is knee jerk or inappropriate about that.

    "you have stolen my dreams" is a far cry from your post


  • Options
    #3994
    um7y1h83ge06nx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,029 ✭✭✭um7y1h83ge06nx


    Tell me how wrote: »
    What she has said is that the solutions which are needed have not yet been invented and that people need to unite and empower scientists in order to help come up with solutions.

    What is knee jerk or inappropriate about that.

    The solutions I would think are knee jerk are not exclusive to her. For example some want to limit or ban air travel. That will be a hard sell to many, limiting it's support and impacting the overall environmental message.


  • Options
    #3995
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Wonderful name. Kudos.

    My point though is that its not happening nearly as much as you initially suggest.


  • Options
    #3996
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Peer reviewed research is the most reliable research.
    Sure, but not necessarily conclusive just that it meets the standard. There are still issues with the reproducibility of some studies.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3997
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,750 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Sure, but not necessarily conclusive just that it meets the standard. There are still issues with the reproducibility of studies.

    Yes but is there a preferred alternative in your view?


  • Options
    #3998
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,375 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Sure, but not necessarily conclusive just that it meets the standard. There are still issues with the reproducibility of some studies.

    Well, I have encountered too many peer reviewed articles that challenge the existence of climate change. In fact, none.


  • Options
    #3999
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Tell me how wrote: »
    Yes but is there a preferred alternative in your view?
    No, peer-reviewed is good but you seem to have trouble accepting other good things like democracy with all its warts!


  • Options
    #4000
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,750 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    is_that_so wrote: »
    No, peer-reviewed is good but you seem to have trouble accepting other good things like democracy with all its warts!

    I'm sorry, what?

    Where have I questioned democracy?


  • Options
    #4001
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Well, I have encountered too many peer reviewed articles that challenge the existence of climate change. In fact, none.
    I'm not disputing the purpose of it but its aim is to be satisfied about the standard of the science and so far as we know the science appears correct.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4002
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Tell me how wrote: »
    I'm sorry, what?

    Where have I questioned democracy?
    In your sneering at politicians above.


  • Options
    #4003
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,375 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    My point though is that its not happening nearly as much as you initially suggest.

    I wasn't talking about your name. about 15 posts up, she was called creepy. I couldn't be bothered trawling back further.


  • Options
    #4004
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,750 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    is_that_so wrote: »
    In your sneering at politicians above.

    I'm sorry, but is this sneering at politicians and showing disregard for democracy?
    Tell me how wrote: »
    I think the number of people who would suggest they trust democratically elected politicians above peer reviewed scientific research would actually be quite small, but you are entitled to do so should you wish.

    Do you therefore agree with the elected politicians who have agreed with Greta's view that something needs to be done.

    For the love of god, if I said I was fond of a cup of tea I'd be accused of demeaning and insulting coffee growers.


  • Options
    #4005
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,375 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    is_that_so wrote: »
    I'm not disputing the purpose of it but its aim is to be satisfied about the standard of the science and so far as we know the science appears correct.

    I agree, the science behind climate change research is correct.


  • Options
    #4006
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Tell me how wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but is this sneering at politicians and showing disregard for democracy?
    Given how it is we who elect them, yes.
    For the love of god, if I said I was fond of a cup of tea I'd be accused of demeaning and insulting coffee growers.
    Politicians are the ones who will have to get it done. None of the people you list will.


  • Options
    #4007
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    I agree, the science behind climate change research is correct.
    As far as we know! :)


  • Options
    #4008
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,375 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    is_that_so wrote: »
    As far as we know! :)

    Gotta trust someone.


  • Options
    #4009
    easypazz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,346 ✭✭✭easypazz


    I
    smelly sock wrote: »
    How do you know though? Were you around 50000 years ago? Do you have a time machine

    Scientists are able to drill bores deep through ice sheets and glean information going back thousands of years., so yes, the technology is there and being used to build a full picture of what is happening in the longer term.


  • Options
    #4010
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    She's not important. The publicity she is generating is important. The personal attacks on her are meaningless.

    I agree she is not important but more importantly the fact is that not all publicity is good publicity. Where it is obvious that publicity is derived from her personal fears (as in the case of her doomsday rantings etc) or where the trip to the US ends up seen as little more than a PR stunt - then such publicity is more likley to have a negative effect and destroy any gains which may have been made to date.

    What is being omitted is the genuine criticism of the circus which has grown up around this teenager and ultimately the polarisation of all relevant issues as a result.


  • Options
    #4011
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,375 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    gozunda wrote: »
    I agree she is not important but more importantly the fact is that not all publicity is good publicity. Where it is obvious is that the publicity derived from her personal fears (as in the case of her doomsday rantings) or where the trip to the US is seen as little more than a PR stunt - then such publicity is more likley to have a negative effect and destroy any gains which have been made to date.

    What is being omitted is the genuine criticism of the circus which has grown up around this teenager and ultimately the polarisation of relevant issues as a result.

    Maybe billions of people heard her speech or parts of her speech. That plants awareness of climate change in their minds. The publicity surrounding her is irrelevant or a deflection at best. Look at this thread. People are discussing climate change here because of her.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4012
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,750 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    gozunda wrote: »
    I agree she is not important but more importantly the fact is that not all publicity is good publicity. Where it is obvious that publicity is derived from her personal fears (as in the case of her doomsday rantings etc) or where the trip to the US ends up seen as little more than a PR stunt - then such publicity is more likley to have a negative effect and destroy any gains which may have been made to date.

    What do you think motivated 4M people to protest for climate action last Friday?
    gozunda wrote: »
    What is being omitted is the genuine criticism of the circus which has grown up around this teenager and ultimately the polarisation of all relevant issues as a result.

    And once again you are dismayed by people challenging this criticism and while it might be genuine in that it is their personal belief, it is not above being challenged and has been found largely to be sourced solely from that basis of personal opinion rather than objective evidence.


  • Options
    #4013
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,606 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    smelly sock wrote: »
    Political world leaders who were democratically elected.

    A lot of these science boffins are paid directly by the cult like eco maniacs.

    Thread carefully.

    People: we need to know what’s going on with the climate!

    Politicians: alright we will pay scientists to get to the bottom of this

    Scientists: here’s the science you wanted

    Politicians: fake! You got paid for this research!

    People: yeah!

    Scientists: :confused:


  • Options
    #4014
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,606 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Sure, but not necessarily conclusive just that it meets the standard. There are still issues with the reproducibility of some studies.

    Problems with replication aren’t just a problem with climate science (nor is it evidence of a conspiracy or a hoax) it has a lot of factors including the velocity at which research is taking place in the modern age


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis


  • Options
    #4015
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Tell me how wrote: »
    Ooh, this is brilliant, attack the messenger.

    Person A: I have several varied and unconnected reasons why I dislike Greta drawing attention to the climate.
    Person B: You should listen to the scientists who have done work on climate issues.
    Person A: You are very arrogant and insulting and clearly have no time for rational discussion.
    Person B: :confused::confused::confused:

    Wrong again.

    Comprehension issues? I was correctly commenting on the message. If you dont agree with that tough. But do not attempt to be disingenuous , it does you no favours.

    And again. Because it is quite simple...
    I saw that comment. The arrogance was palpable and definitly not conducive to any rational discussion. But there we go.

    But in the spirit of discussion let me simplify it for you.

    The tone of that comment was arrogant and failed to aid the discussion.

    I can make it simpler again if you like?


  • Options
    #4016
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,750 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    gozunda wrote: »
    Wrong again.

    Comprehension issues? I was correctly commenting on the message. If you dont agree with that tough. But do not attempt to be disingenuous , it does you no favours.

    And again. Because it is quite simple...



    But in the spirit of discussion let me simplify it for you.

    The tone of that comment was arrogant and failed to aid the discussion.

    I can make it simpler again if you like?

    Please do, none of the rest of it makes sense.


  • Options
    #4017
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Maybe billions of people heard her speech or parts of her speech. That plants awareness of climate change in their minds. The publicity surrounding her is irrelevant or a deflection at best. Look at this thread. People are discussing climate change here because of her.

    I know you weren't talking about my name earlier :cool:

    Millions of people are talking about politics because of Trump, does this excuse his hyperbole?


  • Options
    #4018
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Maybe billions of people heard her speech or parts of her speech. That plants awareness of climate change in their minds. The publicity surrounding her is irrelevant or a deflection at best. Look at this thread. People are discussing climate change here because of her.

    Maybe so but doesnt mean it was recieved positively. But where awareness is a result of a negative perception of what is being said or done (and I'm thinking of her emotional tantrum in this case) - that is not necessarily a good thing. A lot of the discussions of the speech which I have seen are increasingly derived as a reaction against that. This thread for example - is about her so perhaps it is not strange that her various commentaries are getting dragged over the coals and not always positively.


  • Options
    #4019
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,375 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    I know you weren't talking about my name earlier :cool:

    Millions of people are talking about politics because of Trump, does this excuse his hyperbole?

    No. Your point is valid if you consider US politics and global climate change activism to be similar. I wouldn't subscribe to that point of view.


  • Options
    #4020
    BarryD2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,732 ✭✭✭BarryD2


    easypazz wrote: »
    National Geographic.

    The Greenland ice sheet is 10,000 feet thick in places and contains enough ice to raise sea levels 23 feet (7 meters).


    Are you still doubting me?

    Maybe you have a point, as I see the volume of ice on Greenland is estimated at 2,900,000 km3 :)https://web.viu.ca/earle/geol305/The%20Greenland%20Ice%20Sheet.pdf#targetText=The%20total%20volume%20of%20Greenland's,to%200.05%25%20of%20that%20volume.

    However loss of this ice is estimated at 0.05% over 10 years from 1996 to 2005, estimated to be only 'a few percent' by end of the 21st century. So the conjecture about a 7m sea level rise is pointless anyway, typical of the needless scaremongering and fake news around this topic.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4021
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,750 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    gozunda wrote: »
    Maybe so. But where awareness is a result of a negative perception of what is being said or done - that is not necessarily a good thing. A lot of the discussions I have seen are increasingly derived as a reaction against that. This thread for example - is about her so perhaps it is not strange that her various commentaries are getting dragged over the coals.

    There is no evidence that the majority of those who heard her mess age have held a negative perception of it. In fact, given that it motivated the largest single day protest in human history and therefore it could be viewed there was an overwhelmingly positive reaction to it.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement